Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Union of India (Government of Puducherry) against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, which had directed the government to consider the respondent's claim for regularization of service as a co-terminus employee. The respondent, V. Mourthy, was appointed as a co-terminus employee, a personal choice appointment with no formal recruitment process, and his service was co-terminus with the authority who engaged him. Upon the expiry of the employer's term, the respondent's service also terminated automatically. The government rejected his claim for regularization, prompting him to approach the CAT. The CAT, by order dated 25.07.2023, directed the government to verify whether the respondent was still in service and, if so, to examine his case for regularization in light of a previous High Court order in W.P. No. 12700 of 2012. However, it was not brought to the CAT's notice that the respondent had already been terminated from service on 05.07.2018, and the termination order remained unchallenged and had become final. The High Court held that the CAT's direction lost its relevance because the respondent was no longer in service, and the termination order was not under challenge. Consequently, there was no occasion to re-examine the case for regularization. The court set aside the CAT order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Co-Terminus Appointment - Regularization - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The respondent was engaged as a co-terminus employee, appointed at the choice of authority without any recruitment process, and his service stood terminated automatically upon the expiry of his employer's term. The respondent's claim for regularization was rejected by the government, and he approached the CAT. The CAT directed the government to examine the respondent's case for regularization in light of a previous High Court order, but only if the respondent was still in service. However, the respondent had already been terminated on 05.07.2018, and the termination order became final and unchallenged. Held: The CAT order lost its relevance as the fact of termination was not brought to its notice, and re-examination of the case does not arise; accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the CAT order was set aside (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to re-examine the case of a co-terminus employee for regularization is valid when the employee had already been terminated and the termination order remained unchallenged.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.07.2023 in O.A. No. 310/521/2019 was set aside.
Law Points
- co-terminus employees have no right to regularization
- termination of co-terminus appointment on expiry of employer's term is automatic
- unchallenged termination order becomes final and bars further consideration
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 90
W.P. No. 10513 of 2026 and W.M.P. No. 11376 of 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) for petitioners; No appearance for respondent
Union of India, represented by the Government of Puducherry (Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) and The Director of School Education, Puducherry
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (Union of India) sought a writ of certiorari to quash the CAT order dated 25.07.2023 in O.A. No. 310/521/2019.
Filing Reason
The CAT directed the government to verify whether the respondent employee was still in service and, if so, to consider his case for regularization, despite the fact that the respondent had already been terminated and the termination order was unchallenged.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, passed an order dated 25.07.2023 in O.A. No. 310/521/2019, directing the government to examine the case for regularization. Reference was made to a High Court order in W.P. No. 12700 of 2012.
Issues
Whether the CAT order directing consideration of regularization of a co-terminus employee whose services were already terminated is legally valid and sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners contended that the respondent was a co-terminus employee whose services automatically terminated upon the expiry of his employer's term, that no recruitment process was involved, and that the government had rightly rejected the claim for regularization. They argued that the CAT's direction to re-examine the case was rendered infructuous because the respondent had already been terminated on 05.07.2018, and the termination order was never challenged, thus achieving finality.
Ratio Decidendi
A co-terminus employee, appointed at the discretion of an authority without any formal recruitment process, has no right to regularization. Upon the expiry of the employer's term, the co-terminus employee's service terminates automatically. If the termination order is not challenged and becomes final, there is no scope for re-examination or consideration of regularization by the employer or tribunal.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order of CAT lost its relevance on account of the fact that respondent / Co-Terminus was already terminated from service by the Authority vide proceedings dated 05.07.2018.
Since the order of termination remains unchallenged, re-examination of the case of respondent would not arise at all.
CAT also states that if at all respondent continue to be in service, then alone his case has to be considered. But he was terminated on 05.07.2018 itself and the order of termination also became final.
Procedural History
The respondent, a co-terminus employee, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of his service after the government rejected his claim. The CAT passed an order on 25.07.2023 directing the government to verify whether the respondent was still in service and, if so, to examine his case for regularization in light of a previous High Court order. The Union of India filed the present writ petition challenging the CAT order. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the CAT order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
